Talk:Chicago flood

"Mine divers"
The citation that the Army Corp of Engineers brought in "mine divers" from Kentucky needs to be supported. I was one of the divers who worked on the Loop Flood project. To my knowledge, there were only two diving companies brought in to work the job: (1) Brand Marine & Utility, then a division of Waste Management and based in Michigan; and (2) Lindahl Marine & Diving, based in Lockport, Illinois. I can neither confirm nor deny that Brand ever dove any of its people on this job (though I can say that they did have a trailer and site supervisor on-site). Also, Collins Engineers of Chicago, Illinois was on-site and *may* have had an inspection diver in the river (but definitely *not* in the tunnels), though even this is doubtful.

Moreover, contrary to the written report referenced in this Wikipedia article, it was *not* too dangerous for divers to enter the River on Monday: Jim Samoska, the owner of Lindahl Marine & Diving, entered the River at the Kinzie bridge on the afternoon of April 13 and shot video for the Corp of the hole in the bottom of the River; he was restrained (from being sucked into the vortex/hole) by several divers holding his umbilical and extra wire rope that had been attached to his dive harness.

Lastly, having been a commercial diver since 1991, I am unfamiliar with any area of commercial diving known as "mine diving". This is not to say it doesn't exist; it could. However, I think there could be confusion based on the fact that Jim Samoska is a former Navy EOD diver; EOD divers are responsible for clearing "mines" for the Navy (i.e., the types of mines that blow-up ships versus mines that bring coal out of the ground). This said, I have Googled "mine diving" and apparently there are recreational SCUBA divers who enter abandoned shaft mines for sport. Nevertheless, this is not a form of commercial diving and it should be obviously out of the question that the Corp would contact recreational divers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.250.236.163 (talk • contribs).
 * Hi, and thanks for bringing your personal acquaintance with the subject matter here. (I'm not sure it was worth three paragraphs of objection, though!) In fact, the entire article lacks proper inline citations, which are now preferred on Wikipedia, but weren't easily done in 2004. The simple answer is that I agree, as I can find no credible source for this claim, so we can just remove it. It was in the very first version of the article written by, who is still active on Wikipedia. What I'll do is tag this questionable information, and if Shsilver has no good citation for these details, we can remove it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found a reference that states "The city also consulted with “mine divers” from Kentucky—rescue personnel who are trained in entering flooded coal mines, sealing leaks, and draining water from the shafts." However, it postdates what I included in 2002, so I wouldn't consider it a reasonable source. I have no idea where I initially got the information at this point, but will see if I can find some support for the comment.Shsilver 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems cribbed from our article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of other points jump out at me: First, the first person to spot the "vortex" was the bridge keeper at Kinzie. He reported the whirlpool to his superiors around 5:30AM, but they dismissed his report as he was thought to be a drinker. (You'll find this in Tribune or SunTimes articles from the days following the event.) Second, the matresses were among the first things put into the hole, along with some crushed cars; there was some debate whether this may have exacerbated the problem or at least sped-up the inevitable. (Again, this will be supported by Trib. and ST articles from April 1992.) Third, following the mattresses and crushed cars, the Corp decided to use one-inch stone aggregate to *slow-down* the flow rate. While this did slow down the flow rate, it made subsequent diving operations both more difficult and more dangerous (e.g., we had to essentially "vaccuum" the bottom of gravel before we could pour the cement and were concerned all the while that the stone might avalanche and bury us alive). Fourth, the Corp had us prep the tunnels for "marine concrete" to be poured; this is a type of concrete that sets underwater. The Corp was told that because of the sustained flow, the concrete wouldn't set as they hoped. The pour was done and we (the divers) were sent home (in my case to L.A.). We were all recalled (i.e., I had to fly back from L.A.) that *same* night because the Corp's "plugs" slipped as they were told would happen. At this point, inflatible bladders (called "pigs") were brought in from an offshore petroleum company in the Gulf of Mexico. We installed and inflated these pigs and then re-poured the cement. This added about five days to the job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Double Top Secret (talk • contribs).
 * Interesting perspective. I watched it all on TV, so mostly saw Da Mare walking around with the guy from Kenny Construction, with a lot of whirlpool footage. In any case, we could obviously go into much more detail for the plugging efforts. I will tell you that I was working in the suburbs at the time and when a friend told me the Loop was flooded and everyone was going home (so no business could be done), I thought he was pulling my leg. How can you flood a city that isn't below water level? Heh. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

River level lowered?
I question the line in the article that states, "In an attempt to slow the leak, the level of the Chicago River was lowered by closing the locks at Lake Michigan and opening them downstream of Chicago". This contradicts the linked article from the Army Corps, which reads, "The city suggested that the Chicago River be emptied through the Corps' downstream locks. We expressed concern that unbalanced hydrostatic pressures from drawing the river down significantly could damage structures all along the river. Also, vital industrial water intakes might be left sucking air." Anyone know the real story? Kevin Forsyth (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They lowered it a few feet to reduce the force, but pumping the river dry was vetoed. Speciate (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing Contention
The article states: "Today, there remains contention as to whether the mistake was the fault of the workers on-site, their parent company, or the faulty maps provided by the city of Chicago which failed to accurately depict the old tunnel systems. In fact, the Kinzie Street river crossing did not descend as deeply under the river as any of the other crossings." The matter was actually settled in court between the city and Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, finding that GLDD was faultless in causing the flood. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with how to find a source on legal proceedings like this (I only know it because of acquaintances and relatives affiliated with GLDD), but if someone does know where to look, it would be IMHO better to make this clear than just weaselly referring to "contention". His Honor certainly tried his hardest to point the finger at any group other than the city (and none too politely, using terms like "the Mud Dud"), of course, but the map provided by the city to GLDD did not indicate the presence of the tunnel where the pilings were being driven. siafu (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Injuries and deaths?
I just saw a TV program on engineering disasters, in which it was said that this "flood" did not cause any injuries or deaths. Can this be substantiated, and then placed in the article, if true?--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider moving/renaming page
This page is misleading because it sort of implies that this is THE flood to impact Chicago. Numerous floods have actually impacted the city, many with far more costly and wide-reaching impacts than this one. Many scientists would also argue whether this was a true flood in the traditional sense, as it really was more of an engineering disaster than a flood of meteorological origin.W Scott Lincoln 00:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No Dates?
A quick glance at the article, and I think I see just ONE time a date is mentioned, despite the article giving a narrative that seems as if it took place over days, possibly weeks? Can whoever built up the outline of this article or anyone else with more interest and modes of research please add dates chronologically? The whole thing probably needs to be reorganized with a "Background section" followed by a "Description" section on the date that this became an emergency, and then possibly an "Aftermath" section for any policies that were changed or describe notable aspects of the clean-up and repair. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)